IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11261 of 2026 Sudhansu Sekhar Sahu …. Petitioner Ms. K. Baneerja, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S. Das, SC for Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 22.05.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance basing on instruction contended that in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 dated 31.01.2017, charge-sheet was filed on 10.12.2025 and cognizance has been taken by the concerned Court on 19.05.2026. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed by the petitioner that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue a RULE NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they will not be directed to release the gratuity amount which has since been withheld solely due to the pendency of the p. 2 p. 2 Vigilance case registered as V.G.R. Case No. 06 of 2017 and on their failure to show cause or showing insufficient cause, to make the said RULE absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus or by passing appropriate order/direction to the opposite parties, to forthwith release the gratuity amount so withheld along with interest thereon @ 14% per annum, for the period since withheld till the date of disbursement and/or may be pleased to pass such other or further order, as may be deemed just and proper.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from Govt. service on 30.06.2022. In the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 dated 31.01.2017, neither the charge-sheet had been filed nor cognizance had been taken by the time petitioner retired from his service. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 29.05.2025 under Annexure-8, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. But on the face of the Memorandum issued under Annexure-8, petitioner when was not extended with the benefit, he made a representation before Opp. Party No.1, with a prayer to release all his retiral benefits as due and admissible. 5.2. However, on the face of such grievance being made under Annexure-7, petitioner since was extended with the benefit, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.1 be directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner as due and admissible, p. 3 p. 3 taking into account the fact that he has retired since 30.06.2022. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that if Annexure-7 has not yet been considered and disposed of, this Court can pass appropriate order for its consideration. However, it is contended that since admittedly a vigilance proceeding is pending, petitioner has been rightly deprived from getting his retiral benefits. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission made and since it is fairly admitted by the learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance that in the vigilance proceeding in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 dated 31.01.2017, charge-sheet was filed on 10.12.2025 and cognizance has been taken vide order dated 19.05.2026, this Court is of the view that in view of the office Memorandum issued under Annexure-8, petitioner’s claim is required to be considered so made under Annexure-7. 7.1. Accordingly, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on the claim made by the petitioner under Annexure-7 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such consideration, if Opp. Party No.1 came to a conclusion that petitioner is entitled to get the benefits, the same be also released. p. 4 p. 4 7.2. However, it is observed that release of any benefit in consideration of the petitioner’s claim, shall be subject to final outcome of the Vigilance Proceeding and petitioner will not claim any equity on such release of the benefit. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev